Open or robotic? Radical cystectomies for patients with non-metastatic bladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Abstract Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis will review randomized control trials for localized bladder cancer, evaluating surgical and pathologic outcomes of ORC versus RARC. Methods: Randomized studies evaluating adults with non-metastatic bladder cancer who underwent a radical cystectomy. Randomized trials were selected for final review. Data was extracted and analyzed with Revman 5 software. The primary outcome was complication rates within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included postoperative quality of life, estimated intraoperative blood loss, and other perioperative outcomes. Continuous variables were reported using mean difference with 95% confidence intervals, and dichotomous variables were reported using risk difference with 95% confidence intervals with RARC as the experimental group and ORC as the reference group. Results: Of 134 articles screened, six unique randomized studies were selected. For Grade I-II complications, the risk ratio (RR) was 0.92 (95% CI [0.79,1.08], p = 0.33), and for Grade III-V complications, RR 0.93 (95% CI [0.73,1.18], p = 0.59). RARC resulted in decreased blood loss (95% CI [−438.08, −158.44], p < 0.00001) and longer operative time (95% CI [55.23, 133.13], p < 0.00001). Quality of life using the EORTC-QLQ-30 global health score at 3 months post-op appeared to favor RARC with a mean difference of 4.46 points (95% CI [1.78, 7.15], p = 0.001). Pathologic outcomes neither statistically nor clinically favored one modality, as there was no significant difference between mean lymph node yield ( p = 0.49), positive lymph nodes ( p = 1.00), and positive surgical margins ( p = 0.85) between the surgical modalities. Conclusions: Although one surgical modality is not overtly superior, the choice may be decided by mitigating individual operative risk factors like intraoperative blood loss, operative time, post-operative quality of life, as well as institutional costs and learning curve among surgeons.